The case for canceling censorship

"But I would argue that free speech is actually the antithesis of violence. It's really a revolutionary way for human beings living in complex societies to facilitate collective action. But when you suppress it, it becomes a pressure cooker, and it's much more likely to erupt into violence. If you're allowed to criticize the government, criticize different ideas, you have an opportunity to change things for the better according to your beliefs."

"But if you are denied that opportunity, and if you're denied that opportunity by use of force, well, then maybe you're also more likely to say, well, then me using violence is also justified because I can't criticize the government. If I do so they put me in jail or kill me. And so the only way for me to institute change is to use violence. So that's a vicious cycle, right?"

Free expression serves as a nonviolent mechanism for collective action and social change in complex societies. Allowing criticism of government and ideas creates avenues to pursue improvements peacefully. Suppressing speech creates a pressure cooker dynamic that raises the likelihood of violent eruptions. Denying peaceful dissent, especially through force, can lead individuals to see violence as their only option. Democracies with broader free speech tend to experience less violent social conflict. Strict censorship can worsen harms, undermine freedom, democracy, equality, and tolerance, and increase societal violence. Digital platforms amplify both harms and the consequences of suppression.

Read at Big Think